jump to navigation

Is this why Pope Francis does not distribute the Blessed Sacrament? May 9, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, catachesis, contraception, episcopate, Eucharist, General Catholic, Liturgy, Papa, pr stunts, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society.

There is an interesting article by Sandro Magister regarding Pope Francis’ not distributing the Blessed Sacrament. It’s not exactly an original thought – I’ve heard it elsewhere – but it does have some evidence behind it.  The supposition is, that based on the Pope’s earlier writings, while he was still Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he does not distribute the Blessed Sacrament in order to prevent souls from being scandalized when they see some pro-abort or other public sinner receiving the Host from a high Church authority (my emphasis and comments):165111248

There is one particular in the Masses celebrated by Pope Francis that raises questions that have so far gone unanswered.

At the moment of communion, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not administer it himself, but allows others to give the consecrated host to the faithful. He sits down and waits for the distribution of the sacrament to be completed. [And unfortunately, as has been seen, these assistants often give the Host to some standing and in the hand.  There seems to be some guidance to have people receive on the tongue, but it seems inconsistently applied]

The exceptions are very few. At solemn Masses the pope, before sitting down, gives communion to those assisting him at the altar. And at the Mass last Holy Thursday, at the juvenile detention facility of Casal del Marmo, he wanted to give communion himself to the young detainees who approached to receive it. [I pray that does not include the muslims who got their feet washed…..]

Bergoglio has given no explicit explanation of this behavior since becoming pope.

But there is one page in a book he published in 2010 that allows one to infer the motives at the origin of this practice.


At the end of the chapter dedicated prayer, the then-archbishop Bergoglio says:

David had been an adulterer and had ordered a murder, and nonetheless we venerate him as a saint because he had the courage to say: ‘I have sinned.’ He humbled himself before God. [This is a really, really important point in consideration of so many who seem to be of the opinion that sin is OK, because we all do it.  That is the line used by many homosexual advocates, for instance, who argue that since everyone sins, no one should be denied the Blessed Sacrament for their particular grievous sin.  But the point is that those who sin, but repent, are of course welcome. God loves a penitent man. But God loathes the proud.  Those who are proud of their sin, or ever worse, declare their particular cherished sin a “good,” are vastly different from the penitent man who confesses his sin and then receives the Blessed Sacrament, which will help strengthen him against further sin.  Those who are obstinate or proud in sin are rejecting God, claiming that God is wrong, that the Church is wrong, and that they, in their insurmountable pride, are right.  And they re-crucify Christ when they receive Him in that state.  But our world and Church are so incredibly fallen right now, many who call themselves Catholic cannot even distinguish between penitent sinners, and unrepentant ones] One can commit Bergoglio-Videla_thumb[6]enormous mistakes, but one can also acknowledge them, change one’s life and make reparation for what one has done. It is true that among parishioners there are persons who have killed not only intellectually or physically but indirectly, with improper management of capital, paying unjust wages. There are members of charitable organizations who do not pay their employees what they deserve, or make them work off the books. [. . .] With some of them we know their whole résumé, we know that they pass themselves off as Catholics but practice indecent behaviors of which they do not repent. For this reason, on some occasions I do not give communion, I stay back and let the assistants do it, because I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo. One may also deny communion to a known sinner who has not repented, but it is very difficult to prove these things. [In many cases, yes, but with certain notorious individuals, such as Church-persecuting, pro-abort Joe Biden, John Kerry, pretty much any  Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi, their record, and their obstinance, are very clear. Until they PUBLICLY repudiate their many public sins, and do penance, they cannot be received. The fact that they do is one of the utmost scandals in the Church today, and probably not an insignificant aspect of their being so invincibly mired in the horrors of objectively mortal sin] Receiving communion means receiving the body of the Lord, with the awareness of forming a community. [That’s one aspect. I might highlight the communion with God and becoming one with Him, but move along…..] But if a man, rather than uniting the people of God, has devastated the lives of many persons, he cannot receive communion, it would be a total contradiction. Such cases of spiritual hypocrisy present themselves in many who take refuge The Inauguration Mass For Pope Francisin the Church and do not live according to the justice that God preaches. And they do not demonstrate repentance. This is what we commonly call leading a double life.”

As can be noted, Bergoglio explained in 2010 his abstaining from giving communion personally with a very practical reason: “I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo.”

Which is a good point.  And while I admire the Holy Father for denying at least this ultimate commission of this horrific scandal, I think it would be better in so many respects (I can think of 7 or 8 off hand) if certain individuals were simply denied the Blessed Sacrament and/or formally placed under interdict, if not excommunicated. For the scandal involving certain individuals has reached such epic proportions, and so many souls literally fall away from the Faith over it, that merely denying them a photo-op may not be a sufficient work of justice. It is also unjust to those who continue to receive unworthily, as they are not given, in charity, the Church’s salutary medicine of the strongest reproof, in the hope it will shock them out of their sinful actions.  It also places those subordinates who distribute the Blessed Sacrament in a very precarious position, not being certain they will be supported should they deny the Sacrament to some unrepentant sinner, and leaves them with the impression they have to provide Our Lord to everyone, no matter how infamous they may be.

If the supposition is correct, then I pray Pope Francis’ current method of dealing with this scandal is just a first step, which will be followed by more vigorous actions to protect the sanctity of the Sacramentl, prevent scandal among the faithful, and stop the grave self-injury souls are committing by receiving unworthily.  I pray at some point there will be a prelate, any prelate, who will demand public repentance from one of these notorious lay people, and will take some formal action to terminate their sacrilegious reception of the Real Body and Blood of Our Lord.


1. Michael P. Mc Crory - May 10, 2013

Well said.
Who will be the first to do what should have been done many many years ago by every priest.

2. Chris - May 10, 2013

Just a note about the picture you have posted. It is not Bergolio giving communion to Videla. As I understand it, this photo has been used to smear Pope Francis’ past. The priest in question is Cardinal Samoré.

tantamergo - May 10, 2013

Sorry, it looked like him! I wasn’t researching the pics, just pulling them off google.

Chris - May 10, 2013

Would you change the caption so that it doesn’t say “Bergolio-Videla”? No reason to spread this misinformation further, don’t you think?

btw, solid post!

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: